The court ruled that mere allegations without corroborative evidence do not justify the detention of an accused, allowing bail under Section 439 CrPC.

Order

08/05/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the instant 4^th bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. His first, second and third bail application being SBCRLMB Nos.3208/2024, 4957/2024 and 10998/2024 were dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 20.03.2024, 29.04.2024 & 16.12.2024. Hence, the instant application for bail.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the petitioner is arrested in this 12.02.2024 on the basis of statement of co-accused, however he was not present at the spot thus, no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

6. At the time of rejecting the 3rd bail application, this Court has passed the following order:-

1. Shri Ramkesh Meena, sub-Inspector is present in person before this Court and have stated that the investigating agency had collected the Cafe I.D. showing the subscription of the relevant mobile number pertaining to the petitioner so also the footages of the CCTV camera installed at toll plazas were also taken during investigation and were stored in a pen-drive, however, unfortunately both the above referred important piece of evidence have not been annexed with the challan paper. It is a very sorrow state of affair that an important piece of evidence has been withheld by the police and charge-sheet has been filed without those document on the basis of which the petitioner has been brought to book in this matter. The SHO is directed to produce both the above referred documents before the trial Court within a period of twenty days from now along with an application. In the event, the SHO produces the document along with the application, it is expected from the learned trial Judge to allow the document to be taken as a part of record. However, the admissibility shall remain open to be questioned by the defence during the trial.

2. List the matter on 16.12.2024.

Furthermore, I.O. Sundeep Kumar has been examined in the trial as P.W.2. He candidly admitted that the identity of the mobile number allegedly used by the accused could not be established. Exhibit P/19 does not establish any connection between the petitioner and the said number. The investigating officer has expressly stated his inability to determine the subscriber of the mobile number used to communicate with the principal accused. Additionally, neither the present petitioner was present at the spot nor any recovery has been affected from his possession. The petitioner is lying behind the bars on the baseless allegations.

7. If it is an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, something is required to be recovered or discovered in pursuance of the information supplied under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which distinctly relates to the commission of the crime. It is the admitted case of prosecution that in pursuance of the information furnished under Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the culpability of the petitioner, nothing new was disclosed, recovered or discovered. This court is of the view that at least there must be some corroborations or support to verify the confession made by the acc